DOWNTOWN MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL...Passenger Safety and Convenience i. passenger safety is paramount in the design of the facility and features to minimize pedestrian circulation

DOWNTOWN MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

• Development of Program Requirements

And Design Guidelines

• Preliminary Screening of Terminal Options

• Selection of the Technically Preferred Option

McCormick Rankin Corporation July 2006

Downtown Functional Assessment

Transportation Terminal

McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION February 2006 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

2. SELECTED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 3

3. PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TERMINAL LOCATION OPTIONS: DTMP .......... 6

4. DEVELOPMENT OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS ................................................... 9

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 16

6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS ...................................... 17

7. ON-GOING WORK PROGRAM ........................................................................21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Option A – MacNab/Hunter Terminal.......................................................... 10 Figure 2 – Option B1 – MacNab Terminal..................................................................... 13 Figure 3 – Option B2 – MacNab Terminal..................................................................... 14 Figure 4 – Option B3 – MacNab Terminal..................................................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Impact Assessment: Terminal Options ..................................... 16 Table 2 - Summary of Capital Costs …..………………………………………………………..17 Table 3 - Summary of Impact Assessment of Option A vs. Option B1 …………………..18



McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION February 2006 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The City of Hamilton has adopted an aggressive program to revitalize the core area of the City. A key initiative is introducing an enhanced human scale to the downtown, placing a greater emphasis and priority on pedestrian and cyclist amenities and the attractiveness of public transportation. Several recent investigations have been undertaken to assist in quantifying the programs necessary to achieve the vision. The specific guidelines for this investigation are provided in the report released in 2001, Putting People First: Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP)

The effects of the implementation of the adopted Transportation Plan on the downtown environment are anticipated to be, on the whole, positive as the plan attempts to bring about a more equitable balance between providing good access for motorists and other measures that promote walking, cycling and the use of transit. The results of a detailed traffic analysis indicated that the existing street network operates at a high level of service for motor vehicles with excess lane capacity along many street sections. This led to the identification of opportunities to change the street network and to identify strategies favouring pedestrians, cycling, transit and short-term parking. An evaluation of alternative solutions using a defined set of guiding principles and evaluation criteria was undertaken to determine the preferred changes as they relate to the movement of vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and parking policies.

Key elements of the adopted plan include:

• conversion of some primary and secondary streets from one-way operation to two-way operation;

• identification of street sections with excess lane capacity that can be used for improvements to the pedestrian environment;

• modification of the street network to encourage commuter and recreational cycling;

• adoption of a strategy to improve to the Gore Park environment and the transit system by consolidating bus terminal operations at an expanded MacNab Street terminal. The present arrangement creates difficulties for passengers in transferring between routes. In addition, the Gore Park terminal has become further removed from large recent developments in the core area; and

• the introduction of parking policies designed to influence mode choice (auto vs. bicycle, transit and walking) while encouraging short term parking for business/retail trips and discouraging all day commuter parking.

This assignment represents the next step involved in the development of a detailed functional planning analysis for the Downtown Transportation Terminal to allow the completion of a Municipal Class C Environmental Assessment submission. The assignment builds on the investigations completed as part of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP). The City recognized that development of an expanded terminal would require a further investigation of impacts and public consultation. The DTMP is the Project File Report for a “Schedule B” Class Environmental Assessment identifying the need and general location for the expansion of a core area transit terminal.




Gore Park

(looking east from James Street)

MacNab Street Terminal

(looking south to Main Street)




2. SELECTED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

The preliminary program requirements for the transportation terminal were provided in the Terms of Reference (ToR) and updated by the Technical Advisory Committee. Geometric standards and space planning criteria were developed with reference to the Canadian Transit Handbook and recent similar facilities in Toronto (TTC and GO Transit), Mississauga and St.Catharines. The selected elements are summarized below.

2.1 Description of Terminal Program Elements

Passenger Safety and Convenience

i. passenger safety is paramount in the design of the facility and features to

minimize pedestrian circulation conflicts with vehicle traffic will be incorporated. Security features will be included such as CCTV, emergency telephones and enhanced lighting;

ii. emphasis will be placed on connecting the terminal to the surrounding

pedestrian network as the provision of a safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian environment is a key factor in increasing the use of public transportation. The DTMP report recommended restricting traffic on MacNab Street between Main and King to local traffic accessing the Convention Centre and the CIBC Building. This was considered to be a desirable feature in the development of the options in order to improve the performance of the operation and to increase the space available for the program requirements.

iii. the facility will comply with all building code requirements regarding fire and

security alarm systems; Accessibility

iv. full accessibility will be provided as necessary by the provision of vertical

circulation devices and high platforms to allow direct entry to the transit vehicles. Accessibility features will be incorporated for physically, visually and hearing impaired customers;

Passenger Environment v. facilities will be provided to enhance the passenger environment including

canopies along platforms, a heated/air conditioned waiting area, ticket sales, bicycle storage and lockers, a concession area, washrooms, service information, benches, litter containers, newspaper boxes, public telephones, electronic information displays, a public address system and a photo identification booth;

vi. noise attenuation and ventilation systems to effectively deal with vehicle emissions will be incorporated into the facility design;




Bus Platforms Requirements vii. There are currently five regular routes that use the MacNab Street terminal

(1-King, 2-Barton, 3-Cannon, 4-Bayfront and 8-York) and nine Mountain routes using the Gore Park terminal at eight platforms as the Upper Kenilworth and the Sanatorium routes use a common stop. Prior to finalizing the program requirements for the new transit terminal, the possible implications of rationalizing present routes were considered in determining the scale of the platform requirements. The result was a terminal program providing 13 bus platforms to meet forecast HSR requirements. The allocation of the HSR platforms is summarized below. The requirements of GO Transit, DARTS and Burlington Transit were investigated and, if possible, accommodation for DARTS and Burlington Transit will be reflected in the program requirements.

Corridor No. of Routes Platforms

Mountain 6 4

James-John North/East

3 2

Inner City Local Routes

4 2

King-Main East 2 2

King Main West 3 3

TOTAL 18 13

The design vehicle(s) will include both 12m and 18m vehicles. The number of bays by type will be 10 bays for 12m vehicles and 3 bays for 18m vehicles;

Quality of Materials and Equipment

viii. high quality, low maintenance materials and finishes will be used that

are durable, hard wearing, colourfast and easily replaced;

Support Facilities

ix. support facilities for operations personnel (washrooms, lunchroom,

supervisor’s office, janitorial closet, electrical/mechanical room, fire detection and alarm, emergency lighting supply);

x. access for service vehicles to perform routine service and maintenance

without interrupting normal terminal operations;




xi. provisions to allow easy replacement of terminal equipment; xii. if sufficient space is available, a maintenance/service bay to undertake

interim repairs for transit vehicles will be included;

xiii. the facility will examine the potential to incorporate taxi stalls; Urban Design Objectives

The “Putting People First: The New Land Use Plan For Downtown Hamilton” provides clear direction regarding the urban design objectives relevant to the development of a new downtown transportation terminal. xiv. improvements to municipal facilities and public spaces will be used to

stimulate property values and investment in adjacent private properties through an emphasis on landscaping and pedestrian amenities;

xv. new development will respect and reflect the design of the surrounding

buildings and open space in terms of design, scale, massing, setbacks, height, integration with the built form and use;

xvi. new development will eliminate street level parking lots and vacant

properties along major streets

2.2 Desirable Site Footprint and Features

This section describes the desirable facility layout where, if property availability were not an issue, all desirable geometrics and amenities would be incorporated into the facility design. Based on recent experience, the site would be rectangular in size measuring approximately 50m in width and 160m in length for a total site area of 8000m2. Circulation around the centre passenger island would be in a clockwise direction to enhance bus operator visibility of pedestrian movements and building clearances. The bus platforms would be arranged to eliminate the need for buses to reverse into or out of the bays. The island platform would include a passenger terminal building of approximately 600 m2 in area. Direct pedestrian linkages to the adjacent major activity and employment areas would be provided. The vehicle circulation areas would be designed to accommodate some bus layover storage adjacent to the outer curb. Access to the adjacent arterial road system would be through signalized intersections to minimize delays to the transit services.




3. PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TERMINAL LOCATION OPTIONS

In the Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP) analysis, six alternative locations for the new terminal were compared with the existing combination of Gore Park and MacNab Street. The options which were generally combinations or variations of the existing locations including the following:

• reallocation of all routes to Gore Park;

• reallocation of most routes to MacNab Street;

• reallocation of all routes to an extended MacNab Street terminal;

• creation of a terminal at the former inter-city bus terminal at Rebecca Street and John Street;

• development of a terminal adjacent to the GO Transit bus/rail terminal; and

• an on-street arrangement where services would focus on key stops and transfer locations in the downtown core and then proceed to designated layover locations at the periphery of the downtown.

The concentration of the transit system within the Downtown at the MacNab Street location was preferred for the following reasons:

i. adjacency to the major core area destinations;

ii. two-way traffic flow under the assumed conversion allows maximum flexibility in access and egress;

iii. “traffic on the left” operation allows development of centre platform configuration for the convenience and safety of passengers; and

iv. The site permits Mountain routes to use King Street to proceed to MacNab Street and provides enhanced transfer convenience to westbound Route 5, 10 and 51 services to McMaster.

However, the DTMP analysis indicated that it would not be possible to accommodate the full terminal program at this location without expanding the terminal footprint into the adjacent parking lot on the east side of MacNab Street. Accordingly, the preference was to incorporate the adjacent parking lot. The proposal also included the former Royal Bank building property adjacent to the MacNab Street parking lot to allow additional flexibility in the design and permit future growth in the scale of the operation. The bank building has since been removed.

Independent of the transit terminal development, the City proceeded with the conversion of segments of the major one-way streets to two-way operation. James Street and John Street have been converted to two-way operation throughout their length. James and John Streets are heavily used by the Mountain routes via the Jolley Cut (22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) and James Mountain Road (21, 33 and 35). For the purposes of the comparison of the options, it was assumed that the Mountain routes operating via the Jolley Cut would continue to operate northbound on John Street and southbound on James Street similar to the present routing. The routes using the James Mountain Road would also retain their existing routing.

The introduction of transit priority measures to mitigate possible traffic delays due to the conversion of these streets to two-way operation may be considered based on




actual operating experience. However, these initiatives are independent of terminal location assessment as they would be common to all terminal proposals and therefore would not be a factor in the comparison.

From the DTMP investigation, consideration of a terminal near the GO Transit terminal was not deemed appropriate for the following reasons:

• this location is already well served by the Mountain routes and accordingly the benefit to be derived from the further integration with the rest of the HSR network would appear marginal; and

• the walking distances from the downtown core are significant, in the order of 0.5km, and beyond the desirable 5-minute walking time to the major concentration of employment/commercial development and major east/west transit services within the Main/King corridor. Diversion of the east/west services and the extension of the Barton, Cannon, Bayfront services south to a location adjacent to the GO Transit terminal were considered cost prohibitive.

As part of this investigation, the potential to locate a terminal on Hunter Street between James Street and John Street was examined in further detail. From a preliminary inspection of the area, suitably sized land parcels and/or roadway right-of-ways to accommodate the projected program requirements are not readily available. The right-of-way on Hunter Street between John and James Streets is in the order of 16.5m. This would provide sufficient space to accommodate a single platform arrangement within a transit mall for a total of 10 platforms. The arrangement would assume the full closure of Hunter Street to general traffic and the exclusion of the existing on-street parking and passenger drop off areas. Present daily traffic volumes in this section of Hunter Street are in the order of 7,000 – 8,000 vehicles.

Based on this assessment, the conclusions of the DTMP investigation remain valid regarding the development of a terminal option to meet the program requirements within the Hunter Street road allowance. The closure of Hunter Street between James and John Street adjacent to the GO TH&B terminal would create significant adverse impacts on local access and traffic circulation. This conclusion is supported by the designation of Hunter Street as a “Mobility” Street under the DTMP. Also, it is unlikely GO Transit would find this to be a suitable proposal given the reduction in access to the GO facilities. In addition, creating a bus terminal in this location is viewed by Planning Department staff to be contrary to the Downtown Secondary Plan principle of preserving the views along Hughson Street to its southern terminus the art deco GO station.

Based on the foregoing, it was concluded that there was sufficient grounds to eliminate this option from further consideration. However, the possible use of Hunter Street in this location to meet a portion of the Downtown terminal requirements was retained in the development of the short-listed alternatives.




Hunter Street – GO Transit TH&B Terminal

(looking west from John Street)




4. DEVELOPMENT OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS

Option A – MacNab/Hunter Terminal (Figure 1)

This option represents a concept which could meet the adopted program requirements while minimizing the amount of private property acquisition. A total of 10 platform locations would be provided at the MacNab Street location using the present island platform layout. The access to the surface parking lot from MacNab would be closed to allow construction of a new passenger terminal building and operations centre on a portion of the parking lot site. No changes in the present traffic patterns would be introduced.

To meet the required 13-platform program, three platforms would be developed along Hunter Street adjacent to the GO TH&B Terminal. The bus platforms would be created in the area presently occupied by the present curb parking. An estimated total of eight parking spaces would be displaced.

The functional layout is illustrated in Figure 1. The allocation of the platform positions reflects the following bus routing arrangement.

• Routes 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 35 would operate north on John, west on King, south on MacNab, east on Main and south on James Street.

• Route 5A/34 would be interlined and be routed west on Hunter, north on MacNab and west on King;

• Route 10 westbound would be routed west on king, south on MacNab, east on Main, north on James and west on King. Route 10 eastbound would be routed east on Main, north on James, west on King, south on MacNab and east on Main;

• Route 51 – University would be routed east on Main, north on MacNab and return west via King Street;

• Route 6, 7 and 8 would be rationalized. From York, the interlined route would operate south on James, west on King, south on MacNab, east on Main and south on James. From John, the route would operate west on Hunter, north on MacNab, west on King and north on Bay;

• Platforms for Route 2, 3 and 4 would be developed along Hunter Street adjacent to the GO Transit terminal. These routes would operate south on John, west on Hunter and north on James Street. By inspection, it would appear that this routing would have a marginal effect on the route running time and not trigger a requirement for additional vehicles.

Option B – Extended MacNab Street

Under these options, the full terminal program requirements would be accommodated at an expanded MacNab Street location. Access to the Convention Centre would be retained but completely separated from the flow of HSR vehicles. Similarly, access to the CIBC underground parking facility would be provided to and from King Street. Three alternative facility layouts were developed under this general concept, each exhibiting comparable property impacts and construction costs.




Option B1 (Figure 2)

The property presently being used for surface parking would be transformed to a large island platform providing nine positions for HSR vehicles. The passenger terminal building would be situated within the footprint of the island platform. The remainder of the required platforms would be provided within the revamped MacNab Street road allowance.

Surface Parking Lot Adjacent to MacNab Street

(looking northeast toward CIBC Tower)

The allocation of the 14 platform positions assumes the following routing:

• All Mountain routes (Routes 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 35) would operate north on John, west on King, south on MacNab into the new off-street terminal, then exit the terminal, proceed south on MacNab Street to Main, then east on Main to turn south on James Street;

• Routes 2, 3 and 4 would use the platforms within the MacNab road allowance by proceeding south on James Street, west on King Street and then south on MacNab into the terminal area. The routes would then exit the terminal and proceed to Main Street and then north on John Street;

• Route 6, 7 and 8 would be rationalized to eliminate Route 7. The interlined route would operate south on James, west on King, south on MacNab, east on Main and south on James. Northbound, the route would operate north on John, west on King, south on MacNab, east on Main and north on James to King;




• Route 5A/34 would be interlined and routed north on James, west on King, south on MacNab and east on Main;

• Route 51 – University would be routed east on Main, north on MacNab and return west via King Street.


A minor variation on Option B1, this alternative would introduce a large island platform into the existing parking lot property immediately east of MacNab Street. However, in order to create a more rectangular island configuration and reduce the required turning radius for buses to re-enter MacNab Street, a portion of the present ramp from the underground parking to Main Street would be enclosed. This would also require re-aligning the vertical profile of the ramp and covering approximately 13m of the existing opening. A review of the geometric and structural feasibility of this adjustment was undertaken to estimate the possible capital cost implications. The bus routing and platform position allocation would be the same as Option B1.


This alternative would provide 13 bus bays and enhances the overall flexibility of transit operations by allowing access to the terminal from both MacNab and James Streets. Operationally, buses would use MacNab Street as they do now and additional passenger islands would be provided on the surface parking lot adjacent to MacNab Street. Additional bays could be developed to distribute among those routes sharing platforms or as bus layover positions. If these additional bays were developed, the southern side of the platform would require two-way bus operations to share a single lane, thereby allowing buses to stop on both sides of the lane. While this reduces the required width of the facility as a whole, the arrangement may introduce operational concerns. The bus routings would remain consistent with those identified under Option B1.




IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The initial work undertaken as part of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan has addressed the first two phases of the Environmental Assessment process namely Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity and Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions. In effect, these phases have responded to the justification for proceeding with the relocation and development of the transit terminal in the core area of the City. This investigation is focused on determining the manner in which to implement the undertaking. Accordingly, the impact assessment methodology described below is aimed at clarifying the differences between the design concepts for the selected undertaking.

The following impact assessment methodology was applied in the evaluation of the alternatives and selection of a technically preferred option. As a result of the upcoming stakeholder consultation, the factors may be expanded to address the issues raised by the public.

Factor Suggested Indicator

• Compliance with program needs

• Passenger convenience

compliance with selected needs

estimated walking time to the centre of the Downtown employment concentration, residential development precincts* and commercial development

potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles

• Impact on adjacent development

• Fire, police and ambulance access

• Impact on road operations

noise, air quality and access restrictions

comments provided by service providers

assessment of level of service impacts

• Financial capital costs and annual cost differences

• Support for core revitalization and urban design objectives

compatibility with the selected policy documents (The New Land Use Plan for Downtown Hamilton and the Downtown Streetscape Plan)

* Schedule L-6, NEW LAND USE PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN HAMILTON




6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS

The impact assessment of each of the four options is summarized in Table 1. The initial capital costs of the options are summarized in Table 2. The estimates applied current unit costs and used the cost information available for the construction of the Mississauga City Centre transit terminal and the GO Transit Union Station bus terminal to benchmark the estimate. The Mississauga terminal was constructed in 1996 at a cost of $7.7M exclusive of property acquisition. The passenger terminal is approximately 600m2. A description of the Mississauga project is provided in Appendix A of this report. The GO Transit Union Station bus terminal constructed in 2002 had a construction value of $4.2M. This facility has seven platforms and a passenger terminal of 500 m2.

Once the impact assessment was completed, the evaluation process focused on the differences between the various alternatives. To assist in the selection of a technically preferred option, the comparison was carried out in successive stages. Each stage reduced the number of alternatives. Those factors which indicated little or no difference between the alternatives were dropped as these factors were not helpful in highlighting the tradeoffs between the options.

The initial step was to compare the implications of the sub-options under Option B in order to reduce the complexity in assessing the alternatives. Of the sub-options Option B1 is preferred. Enclosing a portion of the existing ramp, Option B2, from the underground parking area would likely increase the capital costs in the order of $1,000,000 without materially improving the operation or the capacity of the terminal. While Option B3 would increase the capacity of the terminal with respect to the number of platforms, the operational flaws outweigh these benefits specifically related to the conflict between pedestrians and transit vehicles. Further, Option B3 is considered incompatible with the urban design objectives due to its limitations in closing the frontage along James Street and creating a strong pedestrian linkage between Gore Park and the cultural development west of MacNab Street.

Accordingly, the selection of a technically preferred concept focused on a comparison between Option A and Option B1. The results of the impact assessment are summarized in Table 3. The factors which indicated differences in the implications of the options are highlighted below and discussed in the remainder of this section.

Option A Option B1

• passenger convenience acceptable preferred

• visual intrusion limited some increase

• impact on traffic operations no change some traffic diversion

• support of urban design objectives limited good

• financial implications

o capital costs $6.3M $11.6M

o annual costs $670,000 $900,000




Table 1 – Summary of Impact Assessment: Technically Preferred Option

Factor Option A Option B1 Option B2 Option B3

• compliance with program yes yes yes yes

• passenger convenience acceptable preferred preferred preferred

• adjacent development impacts

o visual intrusion limited some increase under Options B1, B2, B3

o air quality minimal change under all options

o noise minimal change under all options

o site access common impact restricted to adjacent surface parking lot

• emergency vehicle access minimal or no change in present access conditions


• satisfy urban design objectives limited good good poor


o capital costs $6.3M $11.6M $12.6M $11.6M

o annual costs $670,000 $900,000 $975,000 $900,000




Table 2 – Summary of Capital Costs

Item Option A Options B1,B2*,B3

• General Conditions $ 50,000 $600,000

• Excavation/backfill 50,000 300,000

• Landscaping 100,000 200,000

• Concrete work 150,000 350,000

• Site services 50,000 110,000

• Canopy structures 160,000 160,000

• Paving 90,000 180,000

• Forming 50,000 200,000

• Platforms/elevators 50,000 300,000

• Windows/skylights 520,000 520,000

• Finishes 330,000 330,000

• Roofing 400,000 400,000

• Structural steel 250,000 250,000

• Masonry 200,000 200,000

• Mechanical 650,000 650,000

• Electrical 350,000 350,000

• Cash allowances 200,000 350,000

• Miscellaneous 250,000 700,000

• Change orders 150,000 300,000

• Design/ Management 300,000 700,000

Sub – Total $4,545,000 $7,155,000

• Contingency Allowance $1,140,000 $1,790,000

(25% of above)

• Property Acquisition $700,000 $2,700,000

Total Baseline Budget $6,385,000 $11,645,000

* additional $1,000,000 added to cost of B2 to modify parking ramp access




Table 3 – Summary of Impact Assessment of Option A vs. Option B1

Factor Option A Option B1

• compliant with program yes yes

• passenger convenience acceptable preferred

• adjacent development impacts

o visual intrusion limited some increase

o air quality minimal change under both options

o noise minimal change under both options

o site access common impact restricted to adjacent surface parking lot

• emergency vehicle access minimal or no change in present access conditions


• support of urban design objectives limited good


o capital costs $6.3M $11.6M

o annual costs $680,000 $900,000

Compliance with Terminal Program Requirements




Both concepts are generally compliant with the terminal program requirements. The difference relates to Option B1 providing less potential conflict between pedestrian and vehicular traffic, enhanced linkages with the pedestrian areas, specifically Gore Park, and greater flexibility to provide operational support facilities.

Passenger Convenience

The difference in the accessibility provided by the two options is marginal. Both concentrate the transit routes within the King/James area of the core. By consolidating all routes in close proximity, transfer convenience is improved under Option B1. This is particularly important during the off-peak when service frequencies are reduced substantially.

The need for passengers to transfer to reach their destination can represent a major deterrent to system use. This deterrent is heightened if the uncertainty of making the transfer is further compounded by the routes being separated by significant walking distances. From the analysis of the 2001 travel data (Transportation Tomorrow Survey) of the transit trips generated within the Mountain area destined north of the Escarpment, an estimated 15,000 passengers must make a transfer to complete their trip. For the system as a whole, approximately 40% of revenue trips require a transfer with the majority occurring in the core area.

Accordingly, providing a convenient transfer location represents a key factor in retaining current ridership and attracting additional passengers. Under this consideration, Option B1 is clearly preferred as all route platforms are within convenient walking distance of the passenger terminal.

Impact on Adjacent Development

The impact on adjacent development is focused on the importance attached to the access to businesses through the loss of parking, noise, visual intrusion and air quality.

Under Option A, the loss of access from MacNab Street to the surface parking lot has been substantially mitigated with the conversion of James Street to two-way operation. The opening in the island platform was introduced in response to the operator’s request for greater access from both the north and south of the property. The financial impact of the reduction in size is reflected in the estimate of the compensation for the property acquisition. Under Option A, the impact of the loss of the on-street parking along Hunter Street has been assessed with respect to the availability of optional parking both in terms of adjacency and utilization. Two off-street lots are located within the block between John Street and Hughson Street. On this basis it would not appear that the loss of eight on-street spaces poses a significant impact on the businesses located within the area.

Under Option B1, the concept assumes total acquisition of the parking lot site and accordingly, the financial impact of the loss of business is incorporated into the purchase price of the land. The loss of up to 120 parking spaces in this area of the core in terms of accessibility to present and future development is considered marginal given the excess capacity available in the public parking facilities. Option B1 would not affect the supply of parking adjacent to the GO Transit terminal.




Within the area bounded by Queen, Hunter, Wellington and Cannon Streets, the DTMP (2001) determined that there are approximately 10,000 parking spaces located in surface parking lots and parking structures. In addition to this supply, there is a significant amount of employer-provided parking located off-street. The privately owned and operated supply comprises 7,300 spaces located in 34 licensed and an undetermined number of unlicensed lots. From the data provided in the DTMP, the occupancy levels are generally high averaging 80% in the vicinity of James and King William, John and Rebecca and near the GO Station. In the other areas, utilization drops off significantly, averaging approximately 65%. The Downtown Secondary Plan Design Strategy recommends that surface parking be prohibited in the area bounded by James, Main, Bay and Wilson. The Plan suggests the addition of new parking structures would be appropriate north of Wilson and in the new King William and Corktown mixed use neighbourhoods.

From a macro point of view the changes in noise and air quality within the core area will be very minor given the vehicle traffic will be redistributed over the adjacent street network. However, there will be some change on a micro level on selected sections of the street system. The air quality and noise effects were assessed on the basis of the predicted change relative to the existing conditions. Both options will reduce the ambient noise levels and have a positive impact on air quality within Gore Park given the complete removal of transit vehicles from this section of roadway. With respect to MacNab Street, the change in transit vehicle traffic under Option A would be minimal while under Option B1 the decrease in vehicular traffic would be in the order of 50%.

Fire, Police and Emergency Services

Under both concepts, access for emergency vehicles will be maintained to serve the adjacent development. The street arrangement has been developed with this intent. After reviewing the options, the Director of the Fire/Emergency Services predicted that there would be little effect in the operation of police, fire and ambulance services under either alternative layout.

Impact on Road Operations

The impact on the road system of the possible additional delay to general traffic as a result of restricting the section of MacNab between King and Main Street to transit vehicles and local access only is forecast to be relatively minor. The most recent complete counts available were taken in 1998. These counts were spot checked in January 2006 and the magnitude and relationships of the past data appear to remain valid.

In absolute terms, the closure of MacNab Street to through traffic under Option B1 is estimated to divert less than 300 vehicles in the peak hour from this section to other areas in the road network. On this basis, the increase in present traffic delay in this area of the downtown is expected to be marginal. In relative terms, the difference between the terminal options is minimal. However under this factor, Option A would be preferred given this option does not assume any change in the current traffic operational pattern.

Financial Implications

The initial capital cost of Option B1 is considerably higher than Option A due to the scale of the construction involved and the property acquisition costs. The passenger terminal building costs under both options would be consistent. However, the amount




of site clearance, platform construction and the vehicle circulation area are more extensive under Option B1.

The annual costs place the capital and the operating costs of the facilities on an equivalent annual basis by the inclusion of an annual capital repayment of the principal and interest over the forecast life of the facility. For the purposes of this investigation, an interest rate of 6% was assumed together with a facility life of 35 years. A key assumption of the annual cost estimate was the exclusion of the cost of the property acquisition as the property would represent an asset at the end of the forecast life of the facility. The annual costs of terminal operations were assumed common to both options and amounted to $250,000. This amount would cover utilities, cleaning, routine maintenance, snow clearing and security.

Support for Core Revitalization/Urban Design/Heritage Buildings

Option B1 is considered to offer a greater incentive for revitalization in the downtown area. It provides an opportunity to close the gap in the present James Street development frontage, to create a strong pedestrian linkage between Gore Park and the cultural district located to the west of MacNab Street and to develop a substantive landscaping plan to enhance the appearance of the site. Importantly, no heritage buildings are impacted under either option.

Selection of the Technically Preferred Option

In putting forth a recommendation, the Consultant was influenced by the following:

• the facility will be a major feature in the core area of the City for a considerable period of time and accordingly it is important that the development is not only attractive but provides a stimulus to the desired redevelopment of the core area described in the New Land Use Plan for Downtown. Option B1 has the potential to meet these requirements. During the detailed design of the facility, significant direction will be provided by the Heritage and Urban Design Section of the Community Planning Department with participation of the Downtown Renewal Division;

• passenger safety and passenger convenience are key factors given the long term operation of the terminal. Option B1 represents an arrangement which has demonstrated these desirable characteristics in other transit terminal developments;

• the differences between the options with respect to visual intrusion on adjacent properties and general traffic operations are marginal and accordingly have little influence in the choice between the options; and

• while Option B1 is more expensive, the additional annual costs represents approximately 1% of the annual municipal contribution for the operation of the HSR.

On the basis of the above, the Consultant recommended Option B1 to the Technical Advisory Committee as the technically preferred alternative.




7. ON-GOING WORK PROGRAM

The on-going work program will focus on the stakeholder consultation component to ensure the technical analysis is conveniently available to the public and the key stakeholders and that they are given an opportunity to have their questions responded to and their issues addressed through further investigation if necessary. The expectation is the consultation activities can be completed in September with the final documentation being completed in October.

The City’s objective is to commence construction of the new terminal in 2008. To meet this target, the necessary approvals for the project and the property acquisition process should be complete in April 2007 to allow detailed design to proceed in the spring of 2007. This will permit a construction tender to be issued in March, 2008.

APPENDIX A

DOWNTOWN MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix A: Mississauga City Centre Transit Terminal

Information Package

McCormick Rankin Corporation 15 December 2005

Downtown Multi-Modal Mississauga City Centre

Transportation Terminal Information Package

Functional Assessment

McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION December 2005 Page 1

1. BACKGROUND

The facility was built in 1996 at a cost of $7.5M excluding property. In 2005, the

facility was expanded in response to growth in the Mississauga Transit operations to

provide additional platforms along Rathburn Road and to improve the integration with

GO Transit services. The specific details of the development are summarized below:

• Total terminal area of approximately

o 7,250 m2 (9,500 m

2 including landscape buffer area) per 1996 plan

o Additional 2,500 m2 constructed in 2005

o TOTAL terminal area of approximately 12,000 m2

• 14 bus platforms, comprised of 10 12m standard bus platforms, and 4 multi-use

18m articulated/12m standard bus platforms

• Area of passenger terminal

o Approximately 575 m2 at platform level

o Additional 180 m2 at Square One level

• Summary of functions provided:

o Information centre / lost and found

o Ticket sales

o Connections between:

Mississauga Transit

GO Transit (stops located immediately north of City Centre

Terminal on Station Gate Road)

Taxi services

The layout of the facility is illustrated in the following Figure. The specific features are

illustrated in the accompanying photos.





Note: Not to Scale

Access

reconfigured in

2005,

1996

configuration

shown





2. FEATURES

The following table illustrates some of the key operational features and passenger

amenities that have led to the success of the City Centre Transit Terminal.

Feature Photo

• Island platform to reduce

conflicts between

pedestrians and transit

vehicles

• No reversing of vehicles –

clockwise circulation

through station

• Safety/security (CCTV,

public address system,

emergency call stations)





• Vehicle layover area

• Operator facilities No photo available

• Public washrooms No photo available

• Sheltered outdoor

passenger waiting area

• Lost and found /

information centre





• Route map display

cabinets located

throughout facility

• Pay telephones

• Taxi pick up/drop off

area adjacent to terminal

Photo Source: Google Earth, 2005

Taxi area





• Elevator/escalator/stair

facilities easing transfer

to/from neighbouring

Square One Shopping

Centre

• Electronic passenger

information system

• Indoor and outdoor

seating





• Signalized access/egress

for pedestrians to

Terminal and egress for

transit vehicles

Documents

DOWNTOWN MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL...Passenger Safety and Convenience i. passenger safety is paramount in the design of the facility and features to minimize pedestrian circulation